Nawaz, Maryam request to visit London rejected

ISLAMABAD: The accountability court judge, Muhammad Bashir, on Thursday for the second time dismissed an application of Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz, seeking exemption for a week from court proceedings to visit the ailing Begum Kulsoom Nawaz in London.

Previously, the judge had dismissed a similar application four months ago in November last year. The applicant had also attached the medical certificates of Begum Kulsoom Nawaz with their plea, according to which she had to undergo a surgery and they were needed to see her. They had sought one-week exemption from March 26. The counsel for Nawaz, Khawaja Haris, said Begum Kulsoom Nawaz was in a critical condition and she needed her immediate relations to be with her. NAB prosecutor Malik Wasiq, opposing the application, said according to the medical certificate, it wasn’t a matter of life and death. “These cases have to conclude within next two months. Nawaz Sharif is the sole accused under trial in Al-Azizia and Flagship corruption references, while Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz are absconding. As per law, the sole accused cannot claim exemption from the court proceedings,” he added. “We even filed an application before the Ministry of Interior, seeking to put the names of the accused persons on exit control list (ECL),” the prosecutor said.

The judge reserved the order for an hour after hearing the arguments and later rejected the application.

Meanwhile, Wajid Zia, the JIT head, carried on with his statement in the Avenfield reference where he shared his opinion, inferences and the conclusions drawn by the JIT after the court on Wednesday allowed him through a written order to record the statement, with the objections raised by the defence on admissibility to be decided later.

Wajid said the JIT concluded that at the time of $8million loan settlement with Al-Tawfiq in 2000, the Sharif family was the true owner of the London flats, including Nawaz Sharif who seemed to have employed his children and the British Virgin Island company to conceal his status of true beneficial owner.

Wajid said neither the transfer of Nelson and Nescol companies nor the settlement of $8million with Al-Tawfiq had any documentary evidence. The JIT, however, assessed the evidence and material – including the response of UAE government, the BVI attorney general office, forensic expert Robert William Radley – found that there was sufficient reasons to believe that the testimony of Prince Hammad bin Jassim Al Khalifa Al Thani in any case was not of much value. He produced a sale agreement dated April 14, 1980 of Gulf Steel Mill through which 75 per cent shares were sold to one Abdullah Ahli and said it was a fake document. At this, the defence counsels – Khawaja Haris and Amjad Pervaiz –strongly objected and said the prosecution witness had used strong words.

Wajid repeated the whole version of the story which the Sharif family had narrated before the Supreme Court that the how Gulf Steel Mills was established in 1974, how its sale proceeds were invested with the Qatari Royal family in 1980 and how the dividends turned into London flats.

He kept on producing documents and talked about their veracity as well. Repeating the Sharif family’s version of story that the Gulf Steel Mill was sold to Abdullah Ahli in 1980 and later in exile, its machinery had been transported from Dubai to Jeddah to install another steel mills, Wajid said they had written letters to the UAE government, seeking mutual legal assistance (MLA). And in response to the MLA, the UAE government said according to their record, there was no such transportation, he added. After narrating this event, Wajid paused after saying “the JIT concluded .....” –may be due to a recollection that conclusions may not be included in his statement and then rephrased – but ironically the substitute word was not very much different from the conclusion, as he said “the JIT noted.....”

Wajid said the JIT noted that the respondents had made misstatement regarding transportation of the machinery. He also said the Sharif family version that Tariq Shafi handed over 12million dirhams to Fahad bin Jassim was also a misstatement. The JIT head narrated that how the Gulf Steel Mills was sold, for what amount and how much money was paid to the bank in terms of loans etc. He said the Supreme Court had particularly directed the JIT to discover what they did about the liabilities of Ahli Steel Company that was Gulf Steel Mill before its sale. Wajid said Tariq Shafi was sentenced for defaulting loan of the UAE-based BCCI. Later, Wajid presented the Qatari letters that were submitted by Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz before the Supreme Court. The defence counsels, however, raised no objections over the letters.

Wajid said the JIT report’s Volume V contained contradictions about the documents submitted by the Sharif family in the apex court. He said it was contended in the Qatari letter that Tariq Shafi handed over 12 million dirhams in cash to the Qatari Royal family, but neither there was any receipt of the said amount nor any document produced by any of the accused that could prove the investment.

The second Qatari letter mentions payment of some money by the royal family on the directions of Mian Muhammad Sharif and settlement of funds between the Qataris and Hussain, which resulted into handing over the bearer certificates of Nelson and Nescol to Hussain – the two offshore companies holding the four London Avenfield apartments. Wajid said the Sharif family neither provided any record regarding their investment with the Qataris nor any documentary evidence of the settlement of funds in 2006.

Wajid also produced a worksheet provided by the Sharif family to the Supreme Court that reflected the 12 million-dirham investment with the Qatari family business and year-by-year profit and its disbursement from time to time on the instructions of Mian Muhammad Sharif. As per the Sharif family version, the said money was used in forming flagship companies owned and operated by Hassan. Wajid said no documentary evidence of the transactions was ever produced.

Similarly, the accused had narrated before the Supreme Court that from the investment with the Qatari family, three transactions were made to provide money to Hussain who set up Al-Azizia Steel Company in Jeddah. There is no documentary evidence of three transactions as well, Wajid said.

Talking about the Al-Tawfiq litigation against Hudaibiya, Wajid said Mian Muhammad Sharif, Abbas Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif had a beneficial interest in Avenfield London apartments. An $8million was paid to Al-Tawfiq but had been explained who paid the loan to Sharif family for settlement of debt, he added.

When Zia recorded his conclusions, Haris said, “We are just having a compromise with this situation.” Meanwhile, Wajid would now continue with recording his statement on March 27.